People who work with male BALB/c mice know that these animals are prone to fighting. That is exactly what happened in Dr. Holly Stein's aggression study—but it was supposed to happen. Stein had been studying aggression and its prevention in mice for many years and was competent in allowing little more than skin wounds to occur. Today, however, two mice quickly began fighting, and before they could be separated, one of them suffered a significant wound to his eye. Although Stein had treated superficial eye wounds in the past as part of her IACUC-approved protocol, this time the eye was badly proptosed (displaced forward) from the orbit and Stein didn't know what to do. It was a Saturday afternoon. The school's veterinarian could be called in to treat the animal, but Stein was very upset and didn't want the animal to suffer or to euthanize a valuable study animal. Therefore, she anesthetized the mouse with ketamine and xylazine and snipped the few tissues that were still keeping the eye attached to the mouse's body. She applied direct pressure to the orbit area for about a minute to stop the small amount of blood loss, applied an antibiotic ointment over the ocular skin, breathed deeply, then sat down and cried. Stein really cared about her animals, and she was devastated about what had just occurred.

After a few minutes she composed herself, called the veterinarian and told her what had happened. The veterinarian reassured Stein that she very likely would have given the same treatment to the mouse had she been there but also told Stein that the condition was not life-threatening and that she should have contacted her, the veterinarian, before doing anything.

On Monday, when the IACUC was apprised of the incident, the chairman reviewed Stein's protocol and saw that the anesthetic drugs she had used were approved but for a different purpose. The ocular antibiotic ointment was approved for minor wounds to the eye. There were two key questions before the IACUC: whether Stein, an experienced researcher, should have known that a proptosed eye was serious but did not represent an immediate life-threatening condition, and whether Stein carried out a procedure without IACUC approval.

The committee struggled with these questions. If Stein truly believed there was an emergency that required immediate intervention, perhaps she should be praised rather than castigated for acting. Alternatively, if she acted recklessly, the IACUC would probably take a very different position. But, as one member commented, it seemed to him that she panicked and did what she truly believed was in the best interest of the animal, even if it was the wrong thing to do. He said, “Do we punish the Good Samaritan?”

How would you proceed with the issues facing this IACUC?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Compassion is in the eye of the beholder

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Crossed the line

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Should no good deed go unpunished?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from USDA and OLAW